DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for priority as a continuation of application no. 19/173,183 filed 08 April 2025 and for priority to provisional application no. 63/632,884 filed 11 April 2024.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (Figures 1-3) in the reply filed on 08 September 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 4-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 23 January 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The rejections of claims 1-3 and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been obviated in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 14 January 2026 except with regards to the “means of attachment” in claim 1. See below.
The rejections of claims 1-3 and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been obviated in view of Applicant’s amendments filed 14 January 2026 and are withdrawn.
The provisional, statutory rejection of claims 1-3 and 12-16 over claims of copending application no. 19/173,183 has been obviated by Applicant’s amendments, but the claims are still not patentably distinct from each other. The claims are now provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting. See below.
New claims 17-20 have been added. Claims 4-11 are withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected species.
Claims 1-20 are still pending. Claims 1-3 and 12-20 are examined on the merits as follows.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitations are:
“means of attachment between the pulley and the rigid body structure” in claims 1 and 17 is not described with sufficient structure in the specification. The limitation meets the three-prong test as follows:
the limitation uses the term “means;”
the functional language is “of attachment between the pulley and the rigid body structure;” and
the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“means for attachment” in claim 15 is interpreted as “a clip, carabiner, u-bolt, hook, or similar means of attachment” as described in paragraph [0041] of the specification, and equivalents thereof. The limitation meets the three-prong test as follows:
the limitation uses the term “means;”
the functional language is “for attachment;” and
the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the weight cable” in line 12. However, claim 1 previously recites “a weight cable or a weight cable extension” in line 7. Reciting only one of the two options previously recited renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the weight cable extension is an option.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the weight cable” in line 11. However, claim 1 previously recites “a weight cable or a weight cable extension” in line 7. Reciting only one of the two options previously recited renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the weight cable extension is an option.
Claim limitation “means of attachment between the pulley and the rigid body structure” in claim 1 and 17 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hall et al. (US 10,792,532, hereinafter Hall).
Regarding claim 1, Hall teaches a portable platform accessory for linear-pull weight machines, comprising:
a rigid body structure (user support 202) with a standing surface (foot platforms 212) on top (Fig. 3); and
a pulley mechanism attached to the rigid body structure (Fig. 12), wherein:
the pulley mechanism comprises a pulley (pulley wheel 310) and a means of attachment (pulley plates 306 form a bracket that attaches the pulley mechanism to the user support 202) between the pulley and the rigid body structure (Figs. 11, 12); and
the pulley is configured to redirect a weight cable or a weight cable extension (cable 292) from a linear-pull weight machine (front leg 204) upward toward a user position above the standing surface (Col. 8, lines 25-28: “apparatus 200 is also provided with a cable 292 that is connected to the lever arm 264 and that is routed, via front and back pulley assemblies, to the user area formed above the foot platforms 212.” Front leg 204 is a weight machine with a resistance mechanism that can be used with a linear or roughly linear pull and is thus interpreted as a linear-pull weight machine, as defined by Applicant [see paragraph [0034] of the specification].);
wherein the rigid body structure is configured to be stabilized on a ground surface against horizontal forces from the weight cable by a downward vertical force applied to the standing surface, said downward vertical force comprising the weight of a user and a downward force from the redirected weight cable (Fig. 3. A user standing on the user support 202 would cause sufficient friction to prevent movement of the device against the horizontal force of the weight cable. The Examiner notes that the claim is directed to functional/intended use recitations.).
PNG
media_image1.png
562
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hall teaches the portable platform accessory of claim 1, wherein:
the rigid body structure has a raised standing surface sufficient to accommodate the pulley mechanism underneath the standing surface (Figs. 3-5);
the pulley mechanism is attached to the rigid body structure underneath the standing surface (Figs. 4-5 show the pulley mechanism under the standing surface.);
and the standing surface has an opening through which the redirected weight cable or weight cable extension may be routed (Fig. 3 shows an opening between the foot platforms; the Examiner notes that “may be” does not require the cable extension to be routed through the opening.).
Regarding claim 3, Hall teaches the portable platform accessory of claim 2, wherein:
the rigid body structure is in the form of a step stool (Fig. 3 shows user support in the form of a step stool.);
the means of attachment is a bracket (pulley plates 306), post, or pole (Fig. 12 shows the pulley plates 306 forming a bracket for attaching the pulley mechanism to the user support 202.); and
the pulley mechanism comprises a redirectional pulley and a stabilizing pulley affixed to one or more plates (swivel plates 302), the redirectional pulley being configured to guide the weight cable or weight cable extension from a roughly horizontal orientation up through the opening to an upward orientation, and the stabilizing pulley being configured to keep the weight cable in line with the redirectional pulley (See annotated Fig. 13 below.); and
the one or more plates are attached to the bracket, post, or pole by a swivel (pivot tube 304) configured to allow horizontal rotation of the one or more plates (Col. 8, lines 48-51: “The swivel plates 302 are each connected to a pivot tube 304 and then the pivot tube is connected between a pair of back pulley plates 306.” Pivot tube 304 allows the swivel plates 302 to swivel and rotate around a horizontal axis.).
PNG
media_image2.png
511
723
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Hall teaches the portable platform accessory of claim 1, wherein the standing surface further comprises a high-friction surface configured to prevent users from slipping while standing on the standing surface (Col. 6, lines 3-6: “Each of the foot platforms 212 is provided with a deck surface that, in this particular case, is formed using a slip resistant diamond plate sheet metal surface.”).
Regarding claim 14, Hall teaches the portable platform accessory of claim 1, further comprising the weight cable extension (Figs 4-5: Cable 292 is a weight cable extension in as much as is described by Applicant. Cable 292 has a means of attachment on both ends.).
Regarding claim 15, Hall teaches the portable platform accessory of claim 14, wherein the weight cable extension has a means for attachment (carabiner 308) at either end or both ends (Fig. 11 shows a carabiner 308 at one end of the cable 292.).
Regarding claim 16, Hall teaches the portable platform accessory of claim 15, wherein the means for attachment is a clip, carabiner (carabiner 308), u-bolt, or hook (Fig. 11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 10,792,532) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoole (US 8,147,389).
Regarding claim 12, Hall teaches the portable platform accessory of claim 1, further comprising pad support plates (256) mounted to the feet comprising a padded lower surface that rests on the ground surface (Figs. 6, 8).
Hall does not expressly teach further comprising a high-friction material attached to a bottom portion of the rigid body structure, the high-friction material being configured to increase a coefficient of friction between the portable platform accessory and the ground surface.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hoole teaches a squat platform comprising a high-friction material (anti-slip pads 110) attached to a bottom portion, the high-friction material being configured to increase a coefficient of friction between the platform and the ground surface (Col 10, lines 49-51: “Squat platform anti-slip pads 110 were made of rubber, synthetic, or any other appropriate anti-slip material.” Applicant’s specification discloses “a high-friction material such as rubber” in paragraph [0039].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pads of Hall by making them of rubber, as taught by Hoole. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “help hold [the] platform in position,” as suggested by Hoole (Col. 8, lines 19-22).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 10,792,532) in view of Hoole (US 8,147,389).
Regarding claim 17, Hall teaches a portable platform accessory used by a user for linear-pull weight machines, comprising:
a rigid body structure (user support 202) with a standing surface (foot platforms 212) on top (Fig. 3); and
a pulley mechanism attached to the rigid body structure (Fig. 12), wherein:
the pulley mechanism comprises a pulley (pulley wheel 310) and a means of attachment (pulley plates 306 form a bracket that attaches the pulley mechanism to the user support 202) between the pulley and the rigid body structure (Figs. 11, 12); and
the pulley is configured to redirect a weight cable or a weight cable extension (cable 292) from a linear-pull weight machine (front leg 204) upward toward a user position above the standing surface (Col. 8, lines 25-28: “apparatus 200 is also provided with a cable 292 that is connected to the lever arm 264 and that is routed, via front and back pulley assemblies, to the user area formed above the foot platforms 212.” Front leg 204 is a weight machine with a resistance mechanism that can be used with a linear or roughly linear pull and is thus interpreted as a linear-pull weight machine, as defined by Applicant [see paragraph [0034] of the specification].);
wherein the rigid body structure is configured to be stabilized on a ground surface against horizontal forces from the weight cable by a downward vertical force applied to the standing surface, said downward vertical force comprising the weight of the user and a downward force from the redirected weight cable (Fig. 3. A user standing on the user support 202 would cause sufficient friction to prevent movement of the device against the horizontal force of the weight cable. The Examiner notes that the claim is directed to functional/intended use recitations.).
Hall teaches pad support plates (256) mounted to the feet comprising a padded lower surface that rests on the ground surface (Figs. 6, 8), but does not expressly teach a high-friction material attached to a bottom portion of the rigid body structure, the high-friction material being configured to increase a coefficient of friction between the portable platform accessory and the ground surface.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hoole teaches a squat platform comprising a high-friction material (anti-slip pads 110) attached to a bottom portion, the high-friction material being configured to increase a coefficient of friction between the platform and the ground surface (Col 10, lines 49-51: “Squat platform anti-slip pads 110 were made of rubber, synthetic, or any other appropriate anti-slip material.” Applicant’s specification discloses “a high-friction material such as rubber” in paragraph [0039].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pads of Hall by making them of rubber, as taught by Hoole. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “help hold [the] platform in position,” as suggested by Hoole (Col. 8, lines 19-22).
Regarding claim 18, Hall in view of Hoole teaches the portable platform accessory of claim 17, wherein:
the rigid body structure has a raised standing surface sufficient to accommodate the pulley mechanism underneath the standing surface (Figs. 3-5);
the pulley mechanism is attached to the rigid body structure underneath the standing surface (Figs. 4-5 show the pulley mechanism under the standing surface.);
and the standing surface has an opening through which the redirected weight cable or weight cable extension may be routed (Fig. 3 shows an opening between the foot platforms; the Examiner notes that “may be” does not require the cable extension to be routed through the opening.).
Regarding claim 19, Hall in view of Hoole teaches the portable platform accessory of claim 17, wherein:
the rigid body structure is in the form of a step stool (Fig. 3 shows user support in the form of a step stool.);
the means of attachment is a bracket (pulley plates 306), post, or pole (Fig. 12 shows the pulley plates 306 forming a bracket for attaching the pulley mechanism to the user support 202.); and
the pulley mechanism comprises a redirectional pulley and a stabilizing pulley affixed to one or more plates (swivel plates 302), the redirectional pulley being configured to guide the weight cable or weight cable extension from a roughly horizontal orientation up through the opening to an upward orientation, and the stabilizing pulley being configured to keep the weight cable in line with the redirectional pulley (See annotated Fig. 13 above with regards to claim 3.); and
the one or more plates are attached to the bracket, post, or pole by a swivel (pivot tube 304) configured to allow horizontal rotation of the one or more plates (Col. 8, lines 48-51: “The swivel plates 302 are each connected to a pivot tube 304 and then the pivot tube is connected between a pair of back pulley plates 306.” Pivot tube 304 allows the swivel plates 302 to swivel and rotate around a horizontal axis.).
Regarding claim 20, Hall in view of Hoole teaches the portable platform accessory of claim 17. Hall in view of Hoole is silent to the coefficient of friction and does not expressly teach wherein the coefficient of friction is between 0.28 and 0.65. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Hall in view of Hoole to have a coefficient of friction between 0.28 and 0.65, because the platform would not operate differently with the claimed dimension because a coefficient of friction between 0.28 and 0.65 would be appropriate for keeping the platform in place on the ground, as desired by Hall. Such modifications involve the mere optimization of a variable within a working range to yield predictable results which fail to distinguish the invention over the prior art. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the specified dimension (see MPEP 2144.05).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 12-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 12-16 of copending Application No. 19/173,183 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation is anticipated by claims 1-3 and 12-16 of the copending application. In particular, in claims 1 and 17, the limitation of “wherein the rigid body structure is configured to be stabilized on a ground surface against horizontal forces from the weight cable by a downward vertical force applied to the standing surface, said downward vertical force comprising the weight of the user and a downward force from the redirected weight cable” is anticipated by the limitation of claim 1 of the copending application of “wherein the weight of a user’s body while standing on the standing surface combined with the downward force of the redirected weight cable or weight cable extension causes sufficient friction between the rigid body structure and a ground surface so as to prevent movement of the portable platform accessory toward the linear-pull weight machine due to horizontal forces from the weight cable or weight cable extension.” The two limitations are simply reworded, but cover the same patentable scope. See the table below for corresponding claims of the copending application and the instant application.
Instant claim
Copending application 19/173,183 claim
1
1
2
2
3
3
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
1 and 12
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been considered but are moot because Applicant’s amendments have obviated the rejections.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues that Hall does not teach a portable platform accessory. The Office respectfully disagrees. The user support of Hall is portable, because it is not directly attached to the ground and is capable of being transported. Applicant argues that Hall discloses a complete, integrated, and standalone belt squat apparatus and is thus not an accessory. The Office respectfully disagrees. The front leg 204 of the apparatus can be removed from and separated from the user support 202. Hall teaches wherein the front leg 204 is mounted to the main mounting plate 260 which can be detached from a front cross member 208 of the user support 202. Even though the user support 202 and front leg 204 are shown as being attached, this does not mean that the user support 202 is not an accessory of the overall apparatus.
Applicant further argues that Hall does not teach the originally filed functional limitation of “wherein the weight of a user’s body… causes sufficient friction… so as to prevent movement of the portable platform accessory toward the linear-pull weight machine.” The Office respectfully disagrees. The newly amended claim limitation reads “wherein the rigid body structure is configured to be stabilized on a ground surface against horizontal forces from the weight cable by a downward vertical force applied to the standing surface, said downward vertical force comprising the weight of a user and a downward force from the redirected weight cable.” This is a functional/intended use recitation. It makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, the limitation is met. In this instance, Hall is capable of meeting the claimed intended use recitations since the device comprises the structures recited by the claim and is capable of being stabilized on a ground surface against horizontal forces from the weight cable by a downward vertical force. The downward vertical forces would be the weight of the user and the downward force of the redirected weight cable.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant argues that Hall fails to teach a stabilizing pulley configured to keep the weight cable in line with the redirectional pulley. The Office respectfully disagrees. The stabilizing pulley 298 is shown as keeping the cable 292 in line with the redirectional pulley in Figure 13. Figure 3 of the instant application shows the stabilizing pulley 124 aligned with the redirectional pulley 125 in a similar way to keep the cable in line.
Regarding claims 14-16, Applicant further argues that Hall does not teach a weight cable extension. The Office respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0041] of the specification of the instant application recites “the weight cable 130 may be an extension cable that is pre-threaded through the pulleys with a means for attachment at either end 132a,b, or both ends, such as a clip, carabiner, u-bolt, hook, or similar means of attachment.” Paragraph [0035] of the specification of the instant application further recites “in some linear-pull weight machines, there may be no weight cable and an extension cable from the platform may be attached directly to the linear-pull weight machine.” The cable 292 of Hall is shown in at least Figure 11 as being pre-threaded through the pulleys with means for attachment at both ends and attached directly to the linear-pull weight machine via connection 294.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Hall in view of Hoole to teach the high-friction material attached to a bottom portion of the rigid structure. The Office respectfully disagrees. Hall teaches padded material on a bottom of the device on pad support plates 256 shown in Figure 4. Hall recites “Pad support plates 256 are mounted to each of the feet. Pad support plates 256 have a planar and preferably padded lower surface that rests on the ground surface” in Col. 6, lines 13-16. Hall is silent to the material of the padded material and does not expressly teach wherein it is a high-friction material. However, Hoole teaches anti-slip pads that are made of rubber. The combination of Hall in view of Hoole teaches wherein the pads of Hall are made of rubber, as taught by Hoole. Applicant argues that Hall’s apparatus is stable and would not require the rubber pads of Hoole. Hall already has pads for added stability. Hoole is relied upon only for the high-friction, rubber material of the pads.
Applicant further argues against the combination of Hall and Hoole because Hall teaches adjusting exercise difficulty through different cable attachment points on the lever arm, rather than by introducing a high-friction material which teaches away from Hoole’s use of a friction material to vary resistance. The Office respectfully disagrees. The high-friction, rubber pads of Hoole are not meant to vary resistance. Hoole teaches wherein the platform anti-slip pads 110 “serve to help hold squat platform 100 in position” (see Col. 8, lines 19-22). The rubber material of the anti-slip pads would also serve to hold the apparatus of Hall in position. Many exercise devices use high-friction material or pads to keep the devices in place in order to prevent injury.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 1 for the recitation of “sufficient friction” have been considered but are moot because Applicant’s amendments have removed the limitation from the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 2 for the recitation of “sufficient to accommodate” has been considered and is persuasive. Applicant stated that “sufficient to accommodate” would be readily understood as “the standing surface must be raised high enough to fit the pulley mechanism underneath it, as depicted in Figure 1.”
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 3 for the recitation of the “two pulleys,” “redirectional pulley,” and “stabilizing pulley” have been considered, but are moot because Applicant’s amendments have overcome the rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of “means of attachment” have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant brings attention to several places with the specification, but none of them describe a “means of attachment” as recited in the claims. If Applicant intends on the “means of attachment” to be interpreted as bracket 123, for example, Applicant should amend the specification to clearly disclose this. It is also noted that references made to paragraphs [0049], [0055], [0057], and Figures 4-8 are for non-elected species.
Regarding the double patenting rejection, Applicant’s amendments have resulted in withdrawal of the provisional, statutory rejection of the claims over the claims of copending application no. 19/173,183, but the claims at issue are still not patentably distinct from each other. Therefore, the claims are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over the claims of copending application no. 19/173,183.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Catrina A Letterman whose telephone number is (303)297-4297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8am - 4pm MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4966. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784